Finneyite Conversionism: Crossing Sea and Land to Bring Cheap Grace to Belarus

https://www.christiandaily.com/news/thousands-respond-to-franklin-graham-s-gospel-message-at-historic-belarus-evangelical-festival

Some will find this report exciting - the fact that Franklin Graham (fresh from the Nationalist celebration on the National Mall in Washington) arrived in Belarus to launch an 'Evangelical' crusade akin to the type of events held by his father Billy during the second half of the 20th century.

Another account reveals that some 2,000 people came forward at the altar call. And thus in the theology of Conversionist Evangelicalism which absolutizes the subjective conversion experience - all these people are going to heaven and given absolute assurance. This, despite the fact that statistics reveals that even six months from now the majority of them won't be attending any kind of church and a year from now only a few percent will.

The argument is that even if just a few souls were saved, it was worth it.

Was it? I would argue that if anyone was saved it was in spite of these Biblically-dubious methods which are rooted in bad theology wed to the gimmick-pragmatism that so plagues American ideology.

But for the others they become twice the children of hell as Christ warned. Our Lord condemned such attempts at proselytism rooted in aberrant theology and defective understandings of the gospel. For the Pharisees the problem was legalism - of both kinds, the additions to the gospel laid upon people like a yoke as well as sense of earning salvation by conformity to their (largely man-made) code.
Modern Evangelicalism is worse in that it's antinomian. Your life doesn't have to change. It's good if it does, but it's not required for salvation. Conversionism wed to a faulty understanding of regeneration and justification becomes everything, leaving sanctification as something optional and union with Christ - when not ignored, it's something to be aspired to. In some circles this requires a 'second work of grace' - another notion that has not basis in Scripture.

The problem is this model relies on an understanding of saving faith that is little more than intellectual knowledge (and barely that) with assent. That's not saving faith. Even the demons believe as much as that. There is no concept of trust - which is essential to saving faith - a faith that bears fruit and produces works. It's also a faith that under normal circumstances will be cultivated in the context of the Church and combined with the means God has provided. The Graham understanding of faith (part of the Charles Finney-DL Moody-Billy Sunday heritage) eliminates this aspect and is often Pelagian in its estimation of man's ability. It ignores the language of Scripture (such as Acts 2.38, 22.16) which connects salvation to baptism, instead choosing to make the exception the rule, and to completely subjectivize and individualize saving faith.

Graham and those like him trumpet grace in the face of all obstacles and or requirements - often even repentance. But the grace they proffer is cheap grace, not the grace revealed in the New Testament.

For my part, I loathe the Graham-Finney Invitation System with its so-called altar calls. I was deceived by it for years and out of frustration cursed Christianity and walked away from it for several years. Of course even though I had been raised in those circles, the bad theology meant that I was never properly part of it - I had never been baptized nor had any proper understanding of saving faith or the nature of the Church. I had been led astray by such false teachers.

After I was genuinely converted, learned the meaning of repentance and saving faith and was baptized, I looked into the Evangelical movement of my youth and was relieved to discover that it was wrong on almost every issue. You might say the guilt that burdened me was doubly lifted. I was reconciled to Christ and so much of the Christianity that I had found off-putting (and yet felt guilty for it), I discovered was in fact erroneous and destructive, and thus my feelings (while not properly grounded) were in fact correct.

Few know of it, but Billy Graham was at times opposed by Christian missionaries abroad. Men and women who had laboured for years to produce genuine, solid converts feared the arrival of a Graham Crusade. In one night he could undo decades of work. How would it harm? Because thousands would be 'converted' at altar calls and have their understanding of salvation confused. And (as stated) in most cases they would fade away and be twice as hard to reach. I experienced this first hand on more than one occasion with people who had responded to altar calls and yet were clearly unconverted and yet were now more unreachable than ever. They were told they were saved and wouldn't hear otherwise even while they continued to pursue godless and wicked lives. They were blinded by cheap grace.

And so, I lament Graham's foray into Belarus. I count it a shame.

And what of his meetings with Lukashenko? Some would say it's a golden opportunity but for others it's a mark of shame. He legitimises Lukashenko's rule as he tries to curry favour with him.

Of course the story of Belarus is long and complicated. The shadow of World War II hangs over the nation - a nation which only came into existence in 1991. Before this the fluid region of Byelorussia had been part of the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire, and even earlier the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Kievan Rus. Sitting near the Polish-Russian frontier these people have always been caught in the middle of Great Power struggles and subject to great depredations and suffering.

The Eastern Front was the deadliest theatre of war in all of history with the USSR suffering more deaths than anyone else in Europe - several times over. In fact in all of World War II, the only nation that comes close to rivalling the Soviet Union is China. But with the massive 25-plus million deaths in the USSR from 1941-1945, no region suffered as much as Belarus wherein nearly 3/4 of the towns were destroyed and about 25% of the population was killed. It's safe to say that even as late as the 1990's the country was still recovering and in a state of near shock.

As the land itself is ill-defined and struggles with identity, it was not surprising to see a strong-man arise in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse in 1991. Some might have said it was inevitable. Lukashenko came to power in 1994 - a very volatile time in the ex-Soviet republics. He brought stability and thus received popular support. But by the mid-2000's when the model (it could be argued) was no longer required, he had entrenched himself and to this day refuses to relinquish power. One of the arguments made in order to justify his authoritarian rule is a direct appeal to the events of World War II.

On the one hand Graham meeting with Lukashenko was absurd because it legitimized his corrupt authoritarian rule. For my part, I don't really have a problem with such models (as others do), but for Graham who supposedly believes fervently in American idealism, his actions are problematic. But on the other hand, given the reality wherein Graham supports a corrupt authoritarian who despises American Liberalism - then his friendly tone vis-à-vis Lukashenko is in keeping with his character.

Regardless I view his visit as unfortunate. His gospel is corrupt and the grace he peddles is cheap. In the short term he can create an air of excitement but in the long term things will be worse off. And if these same Evangelicals just become Americanized in terms of their values and theology, then it's safe to say it would have been better for the Church in Belarus if Graham had never come.